On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Ruby <r...@hush.com> wrote: > > > How did quantum mechanics come about? > > Experimental phenomenon occurred in blackbody radiation that could not be > explained by the conventional physical theories of the day. > >
Right, but all the anomalies that led to QM were robust, reproducible, and widely (even universally) accepted. Anyone could measure the blackbody spectrum and confirm the UV catastrophe. That's not the case with cold fusion. And the development of QM theories to explain the anomalies were accepted as fast as they could be developed, because they fit the evidence, and made successful predictions. The whole amazing development of a completely new and non-intuitive physical theory took about as long as people have been spinning their wheels in cold fusion (with the benefit of a century of progress). And in cold fusion it's still 1989. There really is no resemblance to cold fusion. > Also, the early "planetary" model of an atom with a central nucleus and an > orbiting electron did not fit the conventional theories of the day. > > The conventional theory of the day said that as the electron moved, it > would lose energy, > Just to get it right, the theory said that an accelerating electron loses energy, not just a moving one. (circular motion involves acceleration) > That is what is being said here about cold fusion/LENR/LANR/quantum > fusion/anomalous heat and transmutations. > > Current nuclear theory does not explain ALL the many effects that are seen > in this science. > > The problem is the evidence for many claimed effects is too weak to be accepted. The absence of a theory wouldn't matter if the evidence were robust as is clear from your example of QM and countless others. But when the evidence is erratic, *and* other evidence suggest the likelihood is vanishingly small, then it's likely not real. It's likely pathological, which is why it just limps along for decades with nothing to show for it. > > Please don't give up Mark. Your voice is needed. > > This is the problem with naive cold fusion advocacy. They seem to think it's an issue like abortion or capital punishment that is settled by lobbying. But what it needs is better evidence, not better argument. All the gullible journalists in the world won't change the situation, but a single reproducible and accessible experiment could. I doubt there will ever be one.
